The_Power_Of_Three

That's... not at all the way the law works. You took a real thing (this action was found, upon review, to have been based upon a Michigan law, the EPGA, that—while lawfully invoked by the governor—has now been overturned in court) and then made up a whole weird fantasy about what that would mean. But it doesn't mean that, and providing citations for the real court ruling everyone already knows about does absolutely nothing to prove your wild, unsubstantiated pseudo-legal extrapolations therefrom.

Put simply, the governor acted lawfully, but the law in question has now been overturned. So the orders based upon it cease to have the power of law, unless re-enacted by means of a new method or originating power which is still valid. Which they promptly were, of course. That's it, that's the whole thing.

Secondly, even if your adorable fantasy version were true, that would not be "false arrest." That's a specific legal concept that a statewide edict would not in any way qualify for. Jesus, dude, that doesn't even begin to hold legal ground. You're just making stuff up at this point.

What I can't tell, is if you're a bad-faith actor who knows all this perfectly well but is hoping to delude the ignorant and the stupid with your lies, or if you're one of those who have been deluded and you honestly buy into this bullshit yourself.

Be in jail? That's not at all what the court ruling suggested. Are you deliberately lying, or just completely out of your depth?

Did you even read that link before you posted it? Because

A.) a random article in the Indiana Law Journal from a hundred years ago is not exactly the slam-dunk citation you seem to think it is.

B.) That article, apparently the best you could find despite some serious reaching, doesn't even support your claim.

The article quite clearly lists what the effects of an unconstitutional statute are (or rather, what they were held to be, at the time of publication in 1926) for various cases, classifying them into four categories. This would fall quite clearly into group II.4: Liability of individuals in civil action for acts done in reliance on an unconstitutional statute.

Which the article simply says the courts are in conflict over, and therefore can't conclusively say how they should be treated.

So, to sum up:

Your citation is shit, and even if it weren't, it doesn't say what you claim it says.

That's not the law.

She was not "legally a private citizen threatening house arrest on every citizen." That's not how this works, at all.

I know that's your fantasy—it was the fantasy of the terrorists so recently arrested for plotting to kidnap, "try" and a execute her, too. But they were wrong, and you are wrong.

All it did was limit her ability to have those orders enforced. That's it. I'm sorry that's not what you want to hear, but it's the truth, and I challenge you to find any court ruling saying otherwise.

What are you required to say/not say as a caller to avoid police intervention? I for one know that if the police showed up at my door, I'd feel forced into taking action before they could stop me, even if I might have been okay otherwise. The closest I actually came to suicide was in college when I was on top of a parking garage and a police car approached. I had been just kind of standing in the rain, on the edge being self-indulgent but not really intending to jump. But when that car came by I was suddenly 100% ready to jump if he pulled in. He didn't, he was going somewhere else, so I got down and cried instead, it was incredibly intense and kind of shocked me into a different state of mind. But if he'd pulled in, even by chance, that would have been it for sure.

So I guess my question is, is there some blanket reassurance you can give that will excuse the hotline operator from any obligation to call the police? Or would calling such a line, for someone like me, be painting myself into a corner I can no longer back away from, effectively sealing the deal?